-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently, and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7. We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs. How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago. No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win. The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch. Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate. Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08. Their last title was in 07. It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed. The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time. If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now. We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons. Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If you want to look at regular season success the Spurs have been superior because other than 07-08, 08-09, and 10-11 we haven't been very good regular season teams overall. Meanwhile they've mainted their excellence much more consistently.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on. I certainly don't. I think we've converted once in five tries and wouldn't blame KG's age for that.

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently, and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7. We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs. How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago. No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win. The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch. Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate. Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08. Their last title was in 07. It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed. The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time. If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now. We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons. Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

Haha. So your response to a discussion comparing the recent playoff successes of the Celts and the Spurs is to bring up things that happened farther in the past, not during the time frame we were discussing? That dovetails wonderfully with your earlier umbrage at my bringing up past seasons when the OP was talking about this year.

-Better cap management (i.e. no green type deal and no year to year patching like Wallace/JO. Their FA signings are smarter, more impactful, less "name brand," and have impact over more seasons.)

With a laundry list of advantages like that the real question should be why they under-perform so badly in the playoffs compared to us.

Mostly due to conference. Much harder in west. We were terrible, had a rapid peak and did very little to sustain it intelligently, and thus are downsliding again in a weak conference. The Spurs have won 4 titles and been contenders for more than a decade and continue to be a true contender despite being in a loaded conference. Look at who they have lost to in the playoffs compared to who we've beaten.

How many of the teams that beat them in the playoffs the last 5 years won the conference? They aren't getting taken out by juggernauts.

There is really no way for us to know whether we'd have been able to beat OKC last year or Memphis in 2011.

Everyone loves to point out how we took the HEAT to 7. We also were taken to 7 by a horrid 76ers team in the same playoffs. How we would've matched up to the Thunder and Grizzlies is anyone's guess.

The Grizzlies would've killed us on the boards, we know that for certain.

The Spurs probably would've beaten the Hawks and 76ers last year and beaten the Knicks two years ago. No way of knowing that with certainty, as matchups change, but our last three playoff series wins are over some pretty bad playoff teams.

The Grizzlies didn't rebound much better than we did, either during the regular season or the playoffs. Every team that beat the Celts in the last 5 years won their next series (or won the finals). Every team that's eliminated the Spurs over the last 5 years has lost in the next round. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

The first 5 years of our core saw 1 NBA title win. The first 5 years of their core saw 2 NBA title wins.

We've won the NBA title once in a 5 year stretch. Their core has won the NBA title three times in an 11 year stretch.

Ignoring their work before our core formed certainly makes the comparison easier, but not more accurate. Their organizational expertise shouldn't be penalized because their titles happened to come before our core formed.

Our last title was in 08. Their last title was in 07. It's not like we've beaten them every year in the playoffs since our core formed. The two cores are independent of each other.

I fail to see why so many on this board see our 1 title with this group as one of the great dynastys in modern sports history.

I'd prefer 3 titles to 1, no matter the order or stretch of time. If we were on the same timeline as them, or superior to them, we'd at least have 2 titles by now. We don't.

Our core has as many titles as the 70's Bullets or the 00's Pistons. Joe Dumars has as many titles running a team as Danny Ainge. You can only put so much lipstick on that pig.

Haha. So your response to a discussion comparing the recent playoff successes of the Celts and the Spurs is to bring up things that happened farther in the past, not during the time frame we were discussing? That dovetails wonderfully with your earlier (fake) umbrage at my bringing up past seasons when the OP was talking about this year.

Hate to break this with you, but if we are comparing organizations, Popovich and Buford were around in 07 and Danny and Doc were around in 07, when the Spurs won the title. 2007 fits perfectly into the time frame of discussing the two organizations.

Regardless of a KG/Duncan comparison, a comparison of organizations can't ignore 2007.

The front office and coaching was the same.

The world and the Celtics organization didn't begin in 2008.

Regardless, we've only won one title with this group (in 2008). Their title was only one year prior to that. I wouldn't call our playoff success over theirs overwhelming. Isn't winning the title the goal?

Ainge was hired in 2003. Wyc bought the team in 2002. Is it the Spurs fault that it took Ainge so long to build a contender?

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on. I certainly don't. I think we've converted once in five tries and wouldn't blame KG's age for that.

We could have dumped him for a young player on the level of Duncan? Maybe a KG for LeBron or Durant swap was available and Ainge passed on it?

And while you wouldn't blame KG's age for our only wining one title, you'd certainly have to take his injuries into account, and I don't think that his health and his age are as unrelated as you do.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

Pop is a better regular season coach than Doc. It's close, as both are top-3 in the league, but Pop consistently gets more out of his players, including lesser players, than Doc does. Just last night Pop coached a B-squad to a 5-point loss against the Heat. Our A-squad has been blown out by the Heat, Spurs, Nets, and Pistons.

Doc spends the entire season getting all his players to buy into his team concept and their roles within it. When he accomplishes this goal (2008, 2009, 2010, 2012), he becomes the league's best post-season coach, bar none. When he doesn't accomplish this goal (2011), he's still a great coach, but the team doesn't stand a chance at winning the title. Doc sacrifices the regular season to build for the post-season.

Pop does a similar thing, mostly by outright resting players here and there (like last night), but in the playoffs the Spurs are nowhere near as dangerous or disciplined as they are in the regular season, no matter how rested their stars are.

If you care about regular season records, go with Pop and the Spurs. If the post-season and recent championship appearances are your thing, go with Doc.

The other issue is KG versus TD. The differences between them are astronomical, yet their similarities will place each in the HOF someday. I would love to read a book that discusses the careers of each in the same dialogue. I believe Duncan is the slightly better all-around player, but I love the intense and tenacious KG more as a player (and a Celtic). I'm sure I'd feel different if the Celtics had correctly won the 1997 draft rights to Timmy D.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed). You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there. He still had decisions to make. International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed). You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there. He still had decisions to make. International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse. No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008. I really see no need to keep making the argument. Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances.

That all seems pretty clear cut. I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore.

We're comparing the work of the two teams since KG came to Boston to the Spurs since then (07-08 and onward). KG/Duncan were born a month apart, so their player career arcs (prime, decline, etc) have synced up pretty well.

The idea that Boston should have gotten as many titles out of 32 to and older KG as the Spurs did out of 23 year old and every year after Duncan is a strange one.

If the Celtics thought KG was too old to get the job done, they could've dumped him at any time. I'm sure plenty of teams would be interested.

Ainge chose an older KG to build his team around.

Do you think KG is too old to win a title with? If so, we should move on.

I'm not even sure what you're arguing now if you're going to shift the goalposts that much.

You went from debating the relative playoff success of the Spurs/Celts, to lets compare how many titles the respective "cores" had when first composed (when Timmy had Robinson and was a young MVP caliber guy year in and year out), to Ainge hasn't gotten it done around older KG and should have gone younger since he's failed the past 5 years.

I guess I don't view the past 5 years as failures myself. Though this current offseason of reloading the same pieces is currently looking dicey. (no suprise so did last year)

I'd raise the same point about shifting the goalposts. We went from discussing strengths of each organization to specific runs with a specific group of players.

Ainge was hired in 2003. You can't just ignore Ainge's first several years if you are actually comparing organizations. Ainge's history running the team is before the Big 3.

You and BballTim shifted this from comparing organizations (the same front offices to 2003) to comparing recent playoff success (since 2008). You can't ignore 5 years of Ainge's run because KG wasn't there.

So, please shift the goalposts back for me. Aren't we comparing organizations, and how the Spurs run their organization to how Ainge runs his (which dates back to 2003, before the Big 3)?

When was the discussion ever about what the Celts were like before KG was on the Celts? You can say the argument ignored the pre-KG years, but the goal posts never shifted away from those years, you shifted it *to* those years.

The discussion became about comparing the two organizations (with items like international scouting, long-term management, cap planning, and investment in the D-League being discussed). You shifted it *to* playoff performance since 2008.

Once again, when comparing the two organizations, it makes little sense to ignore the first 5 years of Ainge's run merely because KG and Rondo weren't there. He still had decisions to make. International scouting stretches back further than 2008, for just one example, unless KG and Rondo are our head international scouts.

I don't understand why you are beating this dead horse. No one is going to argue that the Celtics were in the same league as the Spurs prior to 2007-2008. I really see no need to keep making the argument. Everyone knows that prior to 2007-2008, the Spurs were a great team with lots of success while the Celtics were lousy.

I would argue that since adding Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to our roster in the summer of 2007 that the Celtics have been more successful than the Spurs with one title, two Eastern conference championships, and three Eastern conference finals appearances.

That all seems pretty clear cut. I'm not even sure what you are really arguing anymore.

I'm pointing out that comparing organizations stretches further back than 2008. That comparing organizations should stretch to 2003, when Danny Ainge joined our front office.

Danny Ainge runs the Celtics front office, not Kevin Garnett.Popovich and Buford run the Spurs organization, not Tim Duncan.

If you want to compare the differences between the teams in cap management, international scouting, etc..., 2003 should be your starting point. KG doesn't make those decisions.